ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

This is a very complex set of issues, and it is a set of issues. I put a link to a freakonomics blog in one of your earlier entries on this topic, and it did a very good job of explaining why blaming Wall Street was a gross over simplification, if not a complete failure to understand how we got into this situation.

What is the appropriate Christian response to this (or, for that matter, to the Tent City controversy right here in Lubbock, which also wants to deprive its indigent and other non-affluent citizens of the services of a city health department)???

What's the point of coming on here and saying "you're right"? The lack of posts on this blog do not equate to the number of people who read it, only the number who choose to comment on it. Does that make sense, Sbark, or would you like the simpler version?

Veterans are a huge part of the Occupy movement, by the way. Veterans for Peace have been putting themselves on the front line of marches and occupations with the goal of tempering police response. I think in most cases the technique works; what a shame that an Iraq vet was critically injured by Oakland police in this case.

I don't like the idea of anyone getting injured, but as usual the liberals immediately blame the bad ole mean cops. People do not have to worry about tear gas and police batons and rubber bullets when they obey the police orders at a protest. When they don't and charge police a line it is no longer a protest, but a riot and that is when people get hurt. The police have a job to do and they will do it and if a person puts themselves in a position to get hurt that is their fault not the cops.

These rioters are not unarmed since they have all sorts of weapons at their disposal to throw and usually out number the police three to one.

I don't blame the cops for ANY of the actions they took prior to the one idiot who casually tossed a canister at a seriously injured man while he was surrounded by people trying to help him who at that point were not threatening the police in any way. My little brother is a cop in the Houston area and I'll always give the police the benefit of the doubt; they put their lives on the line multiple times daily. My brother would agree, however, that there still has to be a line drawn somewhere. In this case, the line could be defined as "letting the currently non-threatening group of people remove the injured vet before tossing more canisters at them."

From what I saw there were only three people helping the guy and the others were standing around gawking. How many more were coming that way. How do you know the cop did not use the tear gas to disperse those starting to gang up around the injured rioter and become a threat again?

I was unaware that "helping" and "gawking" were such threatening actions. Dispersing an imminent threat is one thing; what I saw on the video was quite another. You can still call yourself a conservative and expect police officers to have some level of accountability, believe it or not.

blacksheep.....My supposition obviously. There were reports of silverware thrown. So it was either knives or forks or spoons. You know good and well I'm not saying other protestors busted his head. But they indirectly caused it by throwing objects....whatever those objects were....at the police. Whether it happened at the time of the incident or before....doesn't really matter.

Take a look at the history of rioting in Oakland and you will understand why the police didn't want this to get out of hand. Stop it fast with whatever force necessary should have been their attitude.

Some people cannot take any responsibility for their own personal actions (i.e.: Why the bandanas and masks?). The cop will probably pay with his job in the end. Will that make you happy if that happens?

I realize the wall street interrupters want a "Kent State" event to further their cause and get some attention. This ain't it.

I watched the video. I turned down the sound so I did not have to listen to the propaganda. The cop did just what he was supposed to do. There was a crowd of people coming over to where the rioter was injured that had no business being there. He used the tear gas to disperse them.

A1st.....The cops will usually react with whatever means they deem necessary to stop a riot. Here is the story I read.....I guess originally from the Oakland Tribune. It says "utensils", which could include a lot more than the term "silverware", which is the term that I used.

I find it hard to believe that any union workers would lie...as I'm sure all the liberals here would agree.

"One officer said that during the camp shutdown, protesters threw bottles, skillets, other kitchen utensils and rocks at police. They also "threw plates at us like Frisbees," the officer said. Police confirmed that protesters had set off a fire extinguisher and several low-level explosives they used to try to confuse or deter oncoming police."

Sounds like a riot to me.....only without the looting.....for now at least.

I certainly respect and support the OWS movement's right to assembly; they also need to respect the law. As far as the points the OWS seems to support, why don't they also march on Hollywood, Las Vegas, professional sports, news organizations, and Capital Hill? Many wealthy, elitist, and separatist people earn their livelihood in these areas, and I don't see anyone complaining about their salaries and privileges! If an actor, Senator, or athlete makes a 1000x more than one of their staffers, where is the outrage? To me, it is primarily about envy and covetousness; not to mention, hypocritical. Our entire country is wealthy compared to the average N. Korean, Haitian, or Somalian citizen. Wanting someone else to pay for something you want (or demand, or have a "right to") is not freedom, its socialism. Ultimately, that kind of thinking punishes initiative and hard work.

The cop did just what he was supposed to? Throw a flash-bang into the group trying to help an injured man?

Good grief.

Some people cannot take any responsibility for their own personal actions (i.e.: Why the bandanas and masks?). The cop will probably pay with his job in the end. Will that make you happy if that happens?

No, actually. The cops who shot tear gas into people all ought to lose their jobs, and the police chief who sanctioned this, and the mayor of Oakland. The bandanas and masks? Attempts to defend against tear gas. If you haven't had military training in how to survive a gas attack, you probably think a dust mask or wet bandana will actually help.

Scott Olsen and the rest of the OWS protesters were exercising their rights as American Citizens, guaranteed by the Constitution, to have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition for redress of wrongs.

The response of the Oakland police was not merely inappropriate; it was illegal. They used deadly force, knowingly, against unarmed persons peacefully assembled.

What is the threat of a group of people with signs, who are singing or chanting or shouting in the street, voicing the truth about the lack of jobs, the lack of business opportunities, and the ever-growing inequality in this nation driven by nothing more than the greed of the few?

I note that Sbark1 still offers no evidence to back up claims of silverware, rocks, etc. thrown at the police (and admits s/he only supposed that knives were being thrown) during the crackdown on the campers Tuesday night / Wednesday morning.

Supposition and rumor trump live video and eyewitness accounts, apparently; and the spin from the Oakland PD and Bill O'Reilly and his cohorts on Fixed Noise trumps the truth of a young man bleeding in the streets of the country he twice risked life and limb to defend in Iraq.

This is not the country I put on a uniform to defend, 30 odd years ago, for sure. In that country, there was no Department of Homeland Security or Transportation Security Agency; the radio gave the cattle prices and corn futures and weather forecast, and played music in between; we had sent men to the moon, and were able to do that again, still.

I am ashamed that my nation has descended to what it is today, and that so many of my fellow Americans like it this way.

but the officer(s)who threw the flash bang at the people trying to help the injured man deserves jail time. He actively tried to prevent them from rendering aide. Sbark, I don't buy your argument that they had no business going to aide him. The police were milling around and looking at him. The grenade - looked like two actually - wasn't thrown until they were gathered around the injured man and it was obvious they weren't charging the barricade. The officers looked bored, not tense or worried.

Aside from that (and the possibility the tear gas canister was aimed at the protestor) this could have been a lot worse, and some of it would have been the protestors fault.

Here are some of the fails as I see them:

1. The protesters set up camp in a park that closed at 10pm. For weeks.

2. The mayor and police chief, in the spirit of cooperation, allowed it.

3. No one cleaned up the park and scavengers (rats) allegedly became a public health hazard. Both sides could have worked together to prevent/fix this problem, but protesters should bear the brunt of responsibility for this.

4. I'm not sure, but I think the protestors were asked to leave, and wouldn't, so plans were made to forcibly move them using forces from around the area because it was too large a group for the Oakland police to handle alone. This was started at 5:30 am. Which makes a sort of sense, but seems risky to me.

6. Police weren't instructed to act at all times as though someone was shooting video of their every move.

With tear gas obscuring what was going on and tension (supposedly) high, it's a miracle no officer freaked out and started shooting at protesters when firecrackers started going off. This could have been a whole lot worse. But it shouldn't have happened at all. If it's true that one of the organizers tweeted for people to bring bottles later that day after the 5:30am raid, I know who bears the brunt of the blame at that point. You don't bring bottles to a peaceful protest.

You need to look at the video again at the crowd of people coming over to where the rioter was injured. There were three people attending to him and a couple standing around. The officer could have thrown the tear gas then, but didn't. He did not throw the tear gas until the larger group started congregating with more coming. He broke up the crowd that was forming before anything could happen.

The police were not milling around and looking at the injured rioter. They were manning the barricade that according to an AP news report the rioters tried to push out of the way earlier. The police did not actively try to stop them from aiding the injured rioter as I stated in the first paragraph.

Well, the expression comes from an English law passed by Parliament in response to the King's despotism, during the era when Parliamentary democracy and the rule of law was being established as a principle OVER AND ABOVE the king's prerogative.

Before the law was passed the king often dispersed gatherings of people who had come together FOR ANY PURPOSE, regardless of their intent or actions,,,, often dispersing them violently and jailing them.

The act requires that for a crowd to be dispersed, a judicial official must appear before the crowd, and certify in a legal document that the crowd was doing something illegal - NOT something the king disliked, but something prohibited by law.

Not only that... after the magistrate had appeared, for it to be licit for the crowd to be dispersed, the magistrate had to read the provisions of the Riot Act verbatim to those assembled and then state how they were violating the act.

ONLY THEN, and then ONLY IF the crowd refused to disperse, ONLY THEN could the assembly legally be called a "riot" and action be taken to disperse it.

So, calling a person in a gathering a "rioter" is really not proper. You have to have a riot for there to be rioters, and for there to be a riot, people have to be disobeying the law.

The persons gathered up at 5:30 AM were camping in a park that closed from 10pm - 6am, so they were breaking the law, and had been for weeks. Of course, their lawyers will argue (rightly) that by allowing them to stay, the city had granted a variance, and should not have evicted them without due process (or something like that).